|
Interesting replies. By the way Phil what do you think of the time lapse feature of the HD video of the new Nikon D800? Its in-camera time lapse but its HD quality (you may be shooting at beyond HD quality).
For low light scenarios for sure I can see the value of larger pixels. It would depend on what your main use of the camera will be. Perhaps its like telescopes - no one camera is best for all uses. The DSLR models do seem to split not only in price but for features best suited for certain applications.
Small pixels usually means smaller wells, more likely to be noisy (although my FLI ML8300 has 5.4 micron pixels - smaller than most DSLRs and it is not noisy at all). I am not sure what effect smaller wells has on daytime photography.
Also is 14 bit or 16 bit camera processing more important to the resulting image more than some of these factors?
I see 5D mark ii and D800 and perhaps others are 14 bit with D800 also processing at 16 bit (not sure what that means if the A/D converter is running at 14 bit but processing at 16bit - not quite the same as A/D running at 16 bit is it?).
But DSLR engineers seem to find little things to enhance the performance of the sensor like better transmission of the Bayer matrix filters, better microlenses, better image processors for less noise.
I did not know of the F ratio limitation for resolution for pixels. Interesting. How is that worked out?
Also what about these Foveon sensors. They don't have Bayer matrixes and no filters at all and all pixels are in the one spot not 2 x 2 grid as in Bayer. Perhaps they have a bright future?
Greg.
|